II">Trial in Court 14: Voir Dire II
Anonymous Prosecutor’s voir dire cont’d.
Talk about some of the laws:
Burden is on the state, on SM’s shoulders and mine.
D does not have to do a darn thing. Not a thing.
One of our most important rights: right to a jury trial.
Let’s say I got a traffic ticket for speeding, and am really really mad. I walk over to the deputy and hit him in front of all of you.
Jurors: you should. #7: on YouTube.
Let’s talk about YouTube. Fair to say that people who put things on YouTube want to show people what they’re doing?
Sometimes. Sometimes things get posted without the people’s permission.
If I hit that deputy, I would have the same right to a jury trial as defendant. I might do it because I wanted to have a forum on traffic tickets, but I have the right to my day in court.
Burden = BRD. How would you know 100%?
Burden ? beyond all doubt or beyond a shadow of doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Higher burden than clear and convincing evidence for taking away child in family court. We don’t want burden BRD because we’re dealing with a child (WTF, AP?).
He has the incredibly important right to cross-examine witnesses. HCDAO has open-file policy. He has had access to all of our evidence. Subpoena list, police reports.
He has the right to represent himself, but be treated like an attorney, like an officer of the court.
Might you be a little biased against the state or favor him just a little bit because he’s acting as his own attorney?
#6 I think I’d be biased against him because it doesn’t make him seem very smart.
Going down the line, starting with #1.
#2 I would think that if I were in a situation I would seek someone with more knowledge than I had to help me. I wouldn’t favor him a little more. I just wouldn’t want to be a part of it. I think I would be for the state more in the beginning. But I wouldn’t be biased for the state. It affects my decision that he’s representing himself. I don’t think it’s the wisest thing to do.
#6 I would start off with a precedent of him making poor decisions. I would be biased in favor of the state.
#7 Biased no, latitude yes. I see him wearing his prayer robes. He believes in God. Most people do not wear their religion, practice their religion daily. I respect that. I would give him latitude on the way he asks questions because he’s not a “learned” “lawyer.” (Doubt quotes in original.)
#8 I would be biased for the State. Something this important should be done right.
#14 Religion doesn’t mask stupidity. I think it’s extremely foolish for him to represent himself. But it wouldn’t bias me.
#15 It would bias me in favor of the defendant. State would start case at a disadvantage.
#16 I would favor the state. I don’t think I could be unbiased in this case.
#18 I’m having a hard time with it. State is more experienced in obtaining information and presenting the case. I think it’s a disrespect to the court to represent yourself. I would weigh the evidence differently than if he had counsel. I would try to be fair. I could.
#20 I think the fact that he’s trying to represent himself shows that he believes very strongly. He might try to pull at our heartstrings.
Reproductive rights: There are a few topics on which everybody has an opinion. Health care, Afghanistan, guns, reproductive rights. I don’t care which end of the spectrum I believe in. It’s none of my business. It’s none of the State’s business. Are the views that you hold with respect to reproductive rights mild, strong, or very strong?
VS S S S VS S VS S S VS
VS S VS VS against M VS S VS VS S
Ever accused of something they felt they didn’t do by police officer? #5.
Would you carry that experience with you if selected? No.
Who do you think you’ll be hearing testimony of? A police officer.
Ever have negative interaction with police officer?
#2: They’re all negative.
Any questions?
#15: Do you care that I’m a lawyer?
Anyone believe, for moral or religious reasons, that they can’t sit in judgment? (WRT religious reasons, unconstitutional question.)
#2: I believe it’s for God to judge.
Thank you etc.
Leg-stretching break.
About The Author
Any objections to the DA testifying (though not under oath) about their open file policy? Do they have an open file policy? Which I interpret to mean a secretary who hands you the file and shows you the copy machine?
No objection. They don’t have an open-file policy by your definition, but AP explained to the jury that D had seen everything in the file.
That’s bizarre for a prosecutor to use in voir dire. In defense voir dire, I usually point out that BRD is the highest standard the law has, a harder standard than is required to take away one’s children or to commit someone to a mental institution. It’s weird to hear a prosecutor arguing that lower standards are cool for taking away kids.